The variety and sizes of computing devices available continues to increase. In addition to traditional desktop computers, now common are various sizes of laptop computers, tablet computers, and even mobile telephones (so-called “smart phones”) that are basically small computers. Now that these computing devices are ubiquitous, it is not surprising that users often use them for viewing documents, photographs, movies, etc. In particular, due to their size and portability, tablet computers lend themselves well for such viewing. Users have long yearned for a way to create a “video wall,” that is, a way to place tablet computers next to one another and have them display a similar single image or movie in a coordinated fashion.
Ideally, a user watching a movie on a tablet computer would be able to place a second tablet computer alongside the first and have both computers not only recognize that they are now next to one another (and to detect which is where), but also automatically merge the two screens into one and display the movie across both computers on a screen which is now double in size. Of course, one could also place two laptop computers next to one another, two smart phones, etc., or use more than two computing devices. While this concept has been promoted, and while certain technologies have been tried, no optimal solution has yet been realized.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,340,957 issued to Adler et al. does show in FIG. 32 placing devices adjacent to one another in order to display an entire image (see also FIGS. 33 and 43-47 showing alternative placements). But, the techniques disclosed to detect relative position are not optimal. Adler discloses using actual physical contact in order to determine the relative location of one tablet to another (columns 15, 16 and 23), but this technique requires special sensors on all sides of each computing device (increasing cost) and requires the devices to be in physical contact (i.e., being very close is not good enough). Adler also suggests that relative location can be determined without physical contact (columns 16, 22 and 23). Adler describes that determining relative location without contact may only be performed using: 1) optical sensors on each device (column 25); 2) radio communication (column 25); 3) a global positioning system within each device (column 25); and, 4) hardcoded programming (column 22). Again, each of these techniques has disadvantages. Using optical sensors requires sensors on each edge of every device and increases costs. Radio communication requires a transceiver in each device and an undisclosed method for determining relative location. Use of a GPS requires sophisticated hardware and software, satellite communication and pinpoint accuracy which is unavailable in GPS devices. Hard coding the location of each device into software or hardware greatly limits flexibility. In general, while Adler discloses some ideas for determining relative location without physical contact, no concrete details are presented.
A more recent technology available from Anywise Enterprise LLC is a product named “The Matrix.” This product will play back any animation that you create across a number of merged tablet screens. But, the user is required to configure each tablet manually (a “hard” configuration) in order to tell the tablet where it falls in relative position to the other tablets in order to create the video wall. Any position change of the tablets requires manual reconfiguration. Further, the product is unintuitive and only that particular product is then able to use the video wall. While such a technology may be useful, it is very limited, is inflexible and requires manual configuration by a user.
Accordingly, a technique is desired that would allow tablet computers (or other computing devices with display screens) to automatically detect their position relative to one another in a flexible and intuitive manner.